Haydn's Haus

[ChamberNut]

[speed equals passion to you   I feel sorry for your significant other ]

Sarge

Funny one! 

[Harry]

I have sampled a few of performances this morning, and there is a fine balance of cheerful, light, but also serious music making, that keeps a good middle of all what I have heard.
The slow movements are weighty and probes at times very deep, the fast movements have bite and a pleasant urgency. The recordings are lucid and forward.
Nothing wrong with the Buchbergers, they are good musicians well motivated and very precise in their executions of Haydn's notes, true to the intent of the composer.
That my two cents of course.

[Herman]

Joseph Haydn will be very pleased with these altercations over his music.

Music is alive when people can still get passionate and dissonant about it.

What I find most touching in this l'il fracas (fracatello?), is the memory of a big spat David and I had years ago, and at the center of it, as I recall were some Haydn quartets, too.

[Gurn Blanston]

But the slow pace of the 18th century combined with mostly amateur playing make it highly unlikely these quartets were played terribly fast. HIP=rushed speeds? I don't think so.

I'm sorry to have to get into any sort of disagreement with you, Sarge, but there is more than one error of fact in this one sentence, and I think that it colors your outlook in general.

Haydn wrote his quartets from Op 1-50, not for amateurs, nor even for sale to amateurs (although that was a nice bonus (not for him, but for a publisher. He didn't make anything until Op 33)). They were written to be performed informally by himself and the members of the Esterhazy orchestra, which included people like Luigi Tommasini, one of the great fiddlers of the time, and Anton Kraft, an equally renowned cellist. These people were hardly amateurs, nor would they have found any amusement in playing music written for amateurs when they were playing for themselves, and for fun. It is, in fact, highly LIKELY that they were played at tempo. With Haydn himself playing the viola, if the score said 'allegro', they damn well played allegro. So please, toss that mental picture out the window. It is fallacious.

Now, I like math as well as the next person, but HIP=rushed is so out of date. Back in the '70's when you were trying out that newfangled "HIPpie" stuff, the probability was high that it seemed rushed. Not only was it played uptempo (and probably a bit more than the players could handle at that speed) but in contrast to the "101 strings" sound of Montovani it seemed even worse than it was.  Well, things have moved on since then. Not only are players better able to handle accurate tempos and still play accurately, but the tempos themselves have found a sort of equilibrium and settled into where they need to be. I don't give a damn, allegro is allegro, and if you don't like it allegro, you need to listen to it allegretto as you wish, but it doesn't follow that this gives you license to trash allegro-ists.

Of course, you can give David a hard time whenever you want. He's a sort of extremist, not like me at all...

[DavidW]

Joseph Haydn will be very pleased with these altercations over his music.

Music is alive when people can still get passionate and dissonant about it.

What I find most touching in this l'il fracas (fracatello?), is the memory of a big spat David and I had years ago, and at the center of it, as I recall were some Haydn quartets, too.

I remember that too!   We are still passionate about Haydn today, and it does please me to be going back and forth with Jens, Sarge and snips like this.

[DavidW]

I do? I didn't realize the Quatuor Mosaiques' Haydn or the Jerusalem's (my favorite Haydn groups) are slow and sedate.

I haven't heard Jerusalem, but QM is too slow.  HIP is not the same as fast, remember that!!

I'm flabbergasted (yes, my flabbers are gasted). The London Haydn, merely pretty? The Festetics found the emotional heart? Unreal. To my ears they just played it fast, completely missing not only the heart of the music, but the emotional depths.

London Haydn is merely pretty not due to the tempo, but due to their very poor inflection.  How can you find depth in music with such phrasing problems?  QM suffers that problem as well.  If you want a not so rushed performance that is not as problematic when it comes to phrasing, try Tatrai Q instead.  It's a little grim for me, but obviously much better playing than what you've been listening to!

[Que]

(...) better slow and sedate than frenetic and unfeeling. But I understand you have that little ADD problem, David  Apparently you need performances that get the music over with as quickly as possible because you're always in danger of losing interest and falling asleep   But the slow pace of the 18th century combined with mostly amateur playing make it highly unlikely these quartets were played terribly fast. HIP=rushed speeds? I don't think so.(...)

As for the accusation that the speeds I like turn Haydn into salon music: I think fast speeds actually do that. Haydn is often accused of being minor league because his music is perceived as light-weight and essentially "happy." The speed demon condutors and quartets just reinforce that perception. The music is played so fast there's little room for emotional inflection; no plumbing the depths. Listen to the way Weil, for example, plays a slow movement compared to Bernstein or Klemperer. Who's taking Haydn seriously? Who's bringing out the deep emotions? A perfect example of this in the quartets was posted a few weeks ago by Antoine: clips from op.9 by the Festetics and London Haydn. The Festetics make the music sound like it was written by Papa Haydn: insignificant music for the parlor; nothing to take seriously. Just slam bam, get it over with as quickly as possible. The London Haydn, though, at a far slower tempo, realize the profound depths that are inherent in the music. Suddenly we're hearing the Haydn that could have influenced Beethoven

(...) The Festetics found the emotional heart? Unreal. To my ears they just played it fast, completely missing not only the heart of the music, but the emotional depths. Que mentioned the London Haydn missed the wit. Is there even supposed to be wit in that first movement? Can't Haydn ever be taken seriously? Must he always be a joke? I guess you all want easy listening Haydn, a composer to put a smile on your face while not thinking too hard about life. A Haydn that doesn't disturb... (...)

Sarge

A few observations!

A: I don't think the Festetics play that fast. Yes, the faster mvts are swift but the in the slower mvts they can actually take things quite leisurely.

B: I don't see how slow equals profundity, nor that "wit" would equal the opposite. I feel that Haydn's wit is actually a strong expression of his intellectual and emotional profundity. Bringing that out where it is there in the music, is bringing out Haydn's personal touch and doing justice to the originality and character of his music. Of course it is hard to describe what "wit" in the context of Haydn is, but IMO certainly not just turning things into a joke or making music sound "light-weight". In any case, that is not what I hear in the Festetics' approach to Haydn.

Sarge, are your impressions also based on listening to that QF opus 50 that you ordered recently?

Q

[jlaurson]

Next on my Haydn list is op.17--and entering the ring are: Quatuor Festetics, Haydn String Quartet, Buchberger, Kodaly, and the Auryn Quartet.

I don't expect I'll come to conclusions that will be universally supported and shared... but perhaps a little closer to the core that is at the diverging opinions here.

I should also mention that I think Sarge's objections have been simplified and then taken down... which is a bit of a straw man. I'm sure he's not in need of a primer on how HIP has changed in the last 30 years. We're talking to Sarge--an open-minded set of ears, as far as I can tell--and not Pinchas Zukerman.

Only slightly related: Next Tuesday I'm on a mission to show precisely that--the advances of HIP in the last 30 years--to my parents who still think that St.Martin-in-the-Fields is the way to play Vivaldi. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Only slightly related: Next Tuesday I'm on a mission to show precisely that--the advances of HIP in the last 30 years--to my parents who still think that St.Martin-in-the-Fields is the way to play Vivaldi. 

Who will you be employing in that little adventure, Jens?

[Sergeant Rock]

Sarge, are your impressions also based on listening to that QF opus 50 that you ordered recently?

Q

No, no...my main thrust was about the Buchbergers which, everyone seems to agree, play the music very quickly--too fast for some (even too fast for their own talent?), perhaps even riding roughshod over the music. I don't know of course. That's simply the impression I got from Snyprrr's rather graphic description  and Jen's statements. Based solely on the comments here, both pro and con, they probably are not going to be my favorite Haydn

I've listened to the Festetics op.50 once so far. I found nothing objectionable and much to enjoy but they aren't going to replace my Tokyo set. I liked the Festetics take on that op.9 movement, too, but found nothing exceptional about it; nothing to make me run off and buy it anyway. It sounded exactly the way most quartets would play the music. The London Haydn, on the other hand, made me sit up and listen. They discovered something new in the music and I loved what I heard. The comment David made ("dull as dishwater") I assume is a manifestation of his unfortunate mental conditional which, I'm told, can be remedied with meds now 

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I haven't heard Jerusalem, but QM is too slow.

Why? Why are they too slow? Which movements, which works? Or are you making a blanket statement about their entire output? They've done nothing right?

HIP is not the same as fast, remember that!!

Huh? Remember that That's what I've been preaching for years. Both the London Haydn and Mosaiques are period groups. Obviously I have no nonsensical belief that HIP equals fast. My argument for the past three or four years here has been that too many conductors, artists, groups, equate speed with HIPness and in doing so distort the music; play it in a way Haydn or Mozart wouldn't even recognize.

London Haydn is merely pretty not due to the tempo, but due to their very poor inflection.  How can you find depth in music with such phrasing problems? QM suffers that problem as well.

I don't hear phrasing problems. The professional critics who love these performances haven't heard problems either. But you have. Hmmm. Where exactly do they go wrong? Enlighten me? Enlighten the world!  

What unifies Snips, Jens and Sarge is that they prefer these things.  Whether the performers label themselves as HIP or modern, it gets a thumbs up from those three if the tempos are on the slower side and the melodic line is long and uninterrupted.

And you prefer fast tempos with the melodic line short and interrupted, choppy. And for you that's great phrasing?--the only way it should be played? That the right way to play Haydn? Fascinating. Do you think Haydn played it your way? Have you heard his recordings?  

Sarge

[DavidW]

Why? Why are they too slow? Which movements, which works? Or are you making a blanket statement about their entire output? They've done nothing right?

I have heard all of their Haydn recordings and found that applies to all.  That doesn't mean that I'm making a sweeping generalization, that means that they approach his body of string quartets with the same approach.

I don't hear phrasing problems. The professional critics who love these performances haven't heard problems either. But you have. Hmmm. Where exactly do they go wrong? Enlighten me? Enlighten the world!  

Circular, of course those that love the performances haven't heard problems!  But let's look at a more critical review from Classics Today shall we?

Unfortunately, the result here is little short of disastrous. This has to be some of the ugliest quartet playing masquerading under the rubric of "authenticity" that you will ever hear.

Hideous timbre is in any case the least of this group's problems. Just listen to the opening movement of the D minor quartet. Yes, the tempo is marked moderato, but that does not mean "trudge". Nor does it mean "play everything legato, with no rhythmic definition whatsoever". Phrases trail off into nothingness, and Haydn's expressive lines degenerate into an inarticulate mess.

Hey what do you know?  He has the same opinion that I reached, and I only read his review right this moment!   Edit: Wait have I, perhaps I've read it before when we talked about this a couple of months ago.  Dang my memory!!!

Here read it yourself-- http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11339

And you prefer fast tempos with the melodic line short and interrupted, choppy. And for you that's great phrasing?--the only way it should be played? That the right way to play Haydn? Fascinating. Do you think Haydn played it your way? Have you heard his recordings?  

Sarge

Predominantly legato phrasing is an invention of the 19th century.  Some pre-19th century music is played legato, BUT much more often short phrasing is used.  And yes I have heard HIP recordings that inappropriately use short phrasing when it really was supposed to be long, but most of the time that doesn't happen.  The result of using incorrect phrasing and yes the word is INCORRECT, is that you fundamentally alter dynamics, adding crescendos that weren't present before or not honoring them, both in order to preserve an unbroken melodic line that doesn't actually exist.  Do I think Haydn played his music with short phrasing?  You're damn right he did!

I find it fascinating that in the same post you claim to know how he wants his music played and then you assert that we can't know how he would want his music played.  Pretty inconsistent if you ask me.

[jlaurson]

Who will you be employing in that little adventure, Jens?

If I had my way, Alessandrini's Four Seasons (the recording of choice: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=122)
Alas, my copy is at a different address, so I'll use Il Giordino Armonico, instead.

For Bach, I will use Egarr's Brandenburgs... (perhaps juxtaposed to Rilling and Busch) and if they let me, I might also juxtapose the Messiah of Rene Jacobs with that of Malcolm Sargent.  

[Gurn Blanston]

If I had my way, Alessandrini's Four Seasons (the recording of choice: http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=122)
Alas, my copy is at a different address, so I'll use Il Giordino Armonico, instead.

For Bach, I will use Egarr's Brandenburgs... (perhaps juxtaposed to Rilling and Busch) and if they let me, I might also juxtapose the Messiah of Rene Jacobs with that of Malcolm Sargent.  

Nice grouping there. Even Il Giardino... although I am a Biondi fan, especially his earlier effort, nonetheless, I freely admit to a lot of nice ways to play it.

Well, if they aren't sold after that, don't know if they ever will be. I love it when converts are made. Do your best...

[snyprrr]

ok, well, mayb e I was a dick earlier. I just compared Op.55 with the Buchberger's and the Lindsays. Funny, everything seems to be backwards from what I originally might have thought... oops!, those emotions again, haha...

First thing is, that "sandpaper" sound I heard was the CELLO playing in the HIP-ish non-vibrato way, haha, NOT the recording, wow, I feel silly. I guess my problem is, I can't "hear" HIP unless I'm doing a side by side comparison with...hrrhmm..."normal" playing, haha. So, slow mvmts. like 55/3 have that "baroque" feeling, all the slow lines going in the same direction with absolutely no vibrato.

When I was actually able to compare timings, they were really all pretty equal (Lindsay and Endellion and BB), so, it wasn't normally a speed issue, especially in Op.55 (there waaas the cartoonish 54/1). Like I said before, it is the LINDSAYS which have the fastest finales around, and in 55/3 they make what the BBs make serviceable, they make it exhilarating.

No, I was checking 55/1, the very high flyin Mozart sounding SQ, and, the BBs sounded fine, until I put on the Lindsays and heard what I was missing, in terms of excitement. So, in this particular case (which I didn't listen to the first time around) the BBs fared competently on the face of it, but when faced with the likes of the woodsy/gutsy Lindsays version-on-fire, they become "dull as dishwater."

The place where they greatest difference occurs for me is in the very pointed menuettos (and finales). The BBs, on the face of it, sound fine, but when compared with the extremely snappy and pointed Lindsays, the BBs again suffer.

Once again, it is in the finales that the Lindsays astonish in comparison. I think it was 55/3, but it is the one with the really really fast violin runs, but once again, when I put on the BBs first, they sounded perfect, but when I put on the Lindsays, the difference was... astonishing (don't we love that word?!).



What I heard in the slow opening of the f-minor was simply the non-vibrato sound making me think "out-of-tune". Sorry, that's MY ears!



I don't know if BBs are supposed to be HIP, or semi-HIP, but when compared to a full blooded folk-combo like the Lindsays, the BBs soouund HIP. If I would have known that, maybe I would have listened differently. If they ARE HIP, then I can only hope that the Festetics are superior in EVERY way. The BBs certainly don't have the Mosaiques cinematic sound (which, I don't necessarily like, either).



My main objections came in  Op.54, anyway, which I haven't yet compared side by side, but I still know they aren't doing anything special with 54/2, and 54/1 still has major problems. Hey, if ya didn't know better, you'd probably think they're ok, so, please forgive me for saying they couldn't play. I'm just not too hip on how they do it (no pun).

Once again, if the BBs are HIP, that would help my understanding (I guess that's why everyone's so hot for them?). The notes don't indicate, and, admittedly, their interesting history seems to belie them being HIP; but, for being around since 1974, I can't understand their approach here with Haydn?



So, it's not necessarily that they play all things too faaast; if they are HIP, then I would consider that they play a touch leisurely. By comparison, the Lindsays are like bright eyed, and bushy tailed squirrels, finding teeming life in every phrase of this music, and it is the LINDSAYS which take most everything as fast as it can go whilst still sounding logical.



Hey, sorry, I must have been in a blackout!



btw- I just saw that the Smithson Quartet has just released Op.9/5, and Op.17 3&5 on Dorian. Anyone?



ok, that's enough ranting from me on the subject. All this has done is make me want to buy more stuff, arrgh!!! I want to find the "perfect" 54/2, yea, right!

[DarkAngel]

I am ready to apply for lifetime membership at Haydn Haus.............

A tremendous large recent expansion of my Haydn collection has been a complete revelation!
Chamber music recent additions:



I have finished the Van Sweiten Piano Trio boxset, wonder stuff at amazingly low price.......I had no idea it would be this good!

Listened to Mosaique Op. 64, 76, 77 SQ box, a vividly recorded beautiful set. Just began the Buchberger complete box, so far Op 9, 17 are just wonderful and exactly what I had hoped for. Very puzzled with the lack of respect this gets in the Haydn SQ thread  

[DarkAngel]

Also did not neglect solo keyboard works............
I already had the wonderful Brautigam set, added two more to that!



Adding

[Gurn Blanston]

That's a really nice chunk of music there for an expansion. Some I have, some I need to get. This is my piano trio set;







I got vol 1 in 1999 and vol 8 last week! It was worth the wait though, I am delighted with them. The difference between these and the Van Sweiten's is that the works up to 1780 are played on harpsichord and the ones after on fortepiano. This very closely mirrors reality, since Haydn didn't have a fortepiano before then and almost certainly wrote for harpsichord right up until 1781.

[Franco]

I can't read the covers.  Who is the group?

[Gurn Blanston]

I can't read the covers.  Who is the group?

Trio 1790. It's 9 disks, volume 8 is a double.



----------------
Listening to:
London Mozart Players / Glover - Hob 01 080 Symphony in d 2nd mvmt - Adagio